Don't take the comment too seriously. Thomas is a liberal hack, neither exceptionally bright nor dumb, and has had a few good moments. I like Furby, there's no need for this Furbish violence. PS. WTF Bullet Clown? That's freaky good.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
I'm sorry that't a horrible thing to say. Such a bright woman. I don't know how you could have hatred to such a woman. But If you have hatred can you magnify it into microwaving Furby. I fucking hate Furby.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
"I'm 100! 100-years-old!"

Her longevity is proof God is in no hurry to deal with another liberal, even for 5 minutes.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"I'm 100! 100-years-old!"
Her longevity is proof God is in no hurry to deal with another liberal, even for 5 minutes.


lol

So you're implying that lots of liberals go heaven then, yes?

>> ^quantumushroom:

"I'm 100! 100-years-old!"
Her longevity is proof God is in no hurry to deal with another liberal, even for 5 minutes.

"I'm 100! 100-years-old!"

Her longevity is proof God is in no hurry to deal with another liberal, even for 5 minutes.

Errrrr...tail chaser.

Orrrrr...tail with a chaser?

At least...not straight up with rocks.


If this is a longevity secret, I'm out of luck as well as philosophically disinclined.

>> ^Trancecoach:

if this woman isn't terrible, then the implications of her longevity on the public stage certainly is.


I'm going to throw out a small point which I will probably be bashed for later, but here goes...
Now I don't believe in or agree with anything Palin has to say but isn't putting a tag of "Terrible" extremely bias especially since it is invoked by only one person? I'm not arguing that she is not terrible I am simply remarking on the damage this does to videosift's integrity. I've seen many posts on the sift calling Fox News bias for telling their viewers how to think by preceding the video with bias remarks... isn't putting tags on videos such as this telling people how to feel before watching the clip the same exact thing?

if this woman isn't *terrible, then the implications of her longevity on the public stage certainly is.

There are bullies everywhere. Some more bullying than others. You have to be able to ignore or push back, 'cause it's easier here than many other places. Be seeing you, if you hang around.

>> ^GoodAttorney:

This is a nice website for content. Nonetheless, I always thought the comments were the best part: informative, well educated, funny, etc. However, my experience is that although some here provide insightful commentary, many established users bully new users whose views they don't agree with. For the site as a whole, I think this is a terrible problem. It is new perspectives that enrich this site and provide it with longevity, with all due respect to established and capable users whose ethics are sound and sifts are provocative.

This is a nice website for content. Nonetheless, I always thought the comments were the best part: informative, well educated, funny, etc. However, my experience is that although some here provide insightful commentary, many established users bully new users whose views they don't agree with. For the site as a whole, I think this is a terrible problem. It is new perspectives that enrich this site and provide it with longevity, with all due respect to established and capable users whose ethics are sound and sifts are provocative.

^ I think Aubrey is mostly right. The biggest question about sustainable longevity, at least to me, is "how soon".

It's too early to tell if there are any major roadblocks ahead. The biggest one may be political rather than technical, but it's difficult to predict at this point.

Regarding longevity by way of "faith": as they say "correlation does not imply causation."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Jesus is just alright with me. Probably a pretty decent guy if he existed.

Interesting info on the longevity study Ox. I hope you are right.

so..selective anecdotal health care?
by using that logic health care can be denied due to peoples age.
its their own damn fault for getting old...
oh wait..health insurance already DOES that!
and QM,
stop using frivolous facts to smokescreen the point.
there is no perfect health insurance,and im sure there will be problems of :fraud,inefficiency and waste.
but what we have now is NOT a free market based system.
it IS wasteful and inefficient.
americans get far less for their buck than any other industrialized nation.
but hey man..if you wanna keep that shite you call a health insurance plan,thats your business.just hope nothing REALLY detrimental happens to you my friend,because once you become a liability,you are toast.

the only argument i have seen coming from the republicans is anecdotal.
this woman waited 6 mos.that woman died before she could get treated.canada and britain have horrible health care.
they do all this hoping you wont look at the numbers.
and the NUMBERS clearly state that:
a.americans pay an avg 5000 per family.
b.thats almost twice the amount compared to other industrialized nations.
c.american health care ranks 37.with higher infant mortality,lowered longevity and a far higher percentages of complications due to mix ups and poor quality treatment.
so...
lets review.
300 million citizens in the U.S.
appx 50 million uninsured.
paying twice the amount than the rest of the world to receive care that ranks 37.
the uninsured costs of health care is absorbed into the tax base(meaning your paying for them anyways).
we could insure everyone in the U.S for 200 million less than we are today(i also 150 million).so not only could we all save some scratch,but everyone would be able to get the basics in health care.
second argument i hear:
america has the best health care(we know this to be false),a much more accurate description would be:america has the best health care money can buy.
BINGO!
everything is for sale in america,and if you can afford that 1.2 million for an emergency kidney transplant then america is the place you wanna be.
but if you cant afford that QM,or anybody else who has bought into the health care industries multi-million dollar propaganda campaign,you are fighting for the wrong side.

I agree, if you haven't had a serious medical issue in your life or had a relative that did, you have absolutely no clue how bad the medical insurance in this country is. I was born with a serious genetic disorder (basically none of my glands work on their own) and the meds & shots I had to take growing up cost my parents $5000 a month. Thankfully my mother worked for the state for over 20 years, and because of that she actually had decent insurance and if it hadn't been for a social program to help with that matter, I'd still owe tens of thousands of dollars for the care I needed growing up.

As well I have a friend who got leukemia, and though she passed away some years later, her husband and their six children will never have good credit as she was dropped from her insurance do to some bogus 'pre-existing condition' and her family still owes over two hundred grand, a decade after her passing.

The health care in this country is a business. It's about making money. I fear it may never change because big corporations get filthy rich of the system and as long as they all but completely run this country, no health care plan will ever succeed that attempts to either shut them down or go head to head with them.

And as long as this countries health care is about making money for big corporations, we will continue to have the worst health care, infant death and longevity numbers in the civilized world.

And that guy in canada complained his mother had to wait a few hours for a semi-emergency in one of canada's biggest cities? I live in the smallest county NY state, we have less than 12'000 citizens (Schuyler County.) Our tiny little country hospital is so over-worked they cant handle anything. I once waited over 4 hours on a Tuesday night with a semi-emergency issue. I cannot imagine what big city emergency rooms must be like.

>> ^shole:
^ That is disputed.
disputed my ass
when skin is covered from direct contact, it stays/becomes more sensitive
the glans and the 'rolling over' shaft skin are noticably more sensitive
naturally it's impossible to measure this during sex by other than longevity due to.. well, being distracted


Back that up with any sort of research?

And I have to say mine is plenty damn sensitive enough without a foreskin, so I'd hate to know how sensitive you think it'd be if I had one.

Also, as for the comment saying that it's done 'as a matter of course'. It certainly used to, hence why I am, but not any more, at least not in Australia. You really have to push really hard to get it done here, in fact most doctors in most hospitals won't do it. So, it has indeed fallen away as a 'standard thing' to do.

I give it little thought really, I am... it is what it is. None of my kids are, because there was no reason to do so.